On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 19:27:14 -0700 (PDT), veritas
yahoo.com>
wrote:
>On Jul 9, 6:27Â pm, "Ralph"
yahoo.com> wrote:>> "veritas"
yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:74624383-d31e-4885-9801-2c81ff74edc1@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jul 7, 6:28 pm, "Ralph" yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>
hotmail.com> wrote in message>>
>>
>>
>>>>> On Jul 4, 8:04 am, "Bill M"
bellsouth.net> wrote:>>
>>>>>> Can anyone supply OBJECTIVE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE that Jesus Christ
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> a real
>>>>>> god and not just an ancient fable???
>>
>>>>> What, you want me to pull Him out of a hat for you? ELP style.
>>
>>>>> John wrote at the end of his gospel
>>
>>>> Modern scholarship has determined that the Christian "Gospel of John"
>>>> was not written by the Apostle John (provided, of course, such a
>>>> figure ever existed in the first place).
>>
>>> "modern scholarship" You mean, liberal scepticism. Anglical Bishop
>>> Butler wrote as far back as 1736, "It is come to be taken for granteed
>>> by many persons, that Christianity is not even a subject of inquiry,
>>> but that it is now at length discovered to be fictitious. And
>>> accordingly
>>> they treat it as if, in the present age, this was an agreed point
>>> among all people of discernment, and nothing remained but to set it
>>> up as a principal subject of mirth and ridicule, as it were by way of
>>> reprisals for its having so long interrrupted the pleasures of the
>>> world."
>>
>>> Here is the true basis for the "modern" dismissal of super-
>>> natural religion and plenary inspiration.
>>
>>>>> I guess one of the biggest evidences I find is that all His disciples
>>>>> disregarded their own lives after His ascension.
>>
>>>> But you have provided no evidence that any of this *really* happened.
>>>> "John" is not the only Christian writing that was fabricated from
>>>> fragments and hearsay a generation or more after these events
>>>> allegedly happened..
>>
>>
>>> I suggest you read about Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) , one of the
>>> principle
>>> founders of Harvard Law School and often noted as probably one of the
>>> best
>>> legal scholars in US history. I have a dead link to an article he
>>> wrote titled, "Testimony of the Evangelists." which I remember
>>> telling of
>>> his agnostic testimony in a class room which when challenged, sent him
>>> off to research the subject for himself. Like another legal scholar
>>> in
>>> Great Britain before him, (who's name escapes me), after careful
>>> research came to the conclusion that the evidence was inescapable.
>>> This wasn't any internet posting nerd's conclusion. And I only refer
>>> to him because of the recognized authority level of the man.
>>
>>>>> Men don't act like this.
>>
>>>> Perhaps you've spent too much time in the company of the wrong men.
>>
>>>> -Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
>>
>>> use to live on 14th st between the Peachtrees. By the time I left
>>> that area, there were all kinds of "wrong men" carousing the streets.
>>
>>> Reply: None of the gospels were written by the authors claimed by the
>>> Christian church. Do a little research before you run off at the mouth.
>>> There is not the first main line scholar who thinks the gospels were
>>> written
>>> by those to which they were attributed.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> I've studied the gospels very closely, as an agnostic, I would have to
>> take issue on the gospel of John. Â I believe that if any of the
>> gospels have any truth in them, it would be John's. Â He simply told
>> what he saw, not what he thought happened, or had heard happened. Â He
>> tells a simple story as if he was there, (He never mentions his own
>> name) and just told it like he saw it. Â I would accept his over any of
>> the others, if I were to accept any at all. (Which I find very hard to
>> do as an agnostic.) Â That might well have happened, but that doesn't
>> mean he had anything more to do directly with God, than Oral Roberts
>> does. Â Lord, that comparison is a bad one. Â Ken Hogan
>>
>> Reply: The gospel of John is a book of theology. It was never meant to
>> describe Jesus except in the light of the early church theology. I have read
>> one book where the author claims John was the first written gospel but there
>> is nothing in evidence to support this.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>You best read the gospels again. I had to study them and the gospel
>of John is not a book of theology, it is simply an account of what
>John saw and told someone who wrote it down. It has been thought the
>last paragraph or so was put in, other than that, it is simply what he
>saw. Ken Hogan
"In the beginnng was the..."
Oh, wait John actually saw the beginning and the Logos and God etc?
----------------------------------
A skeleton, the philosophers say, cannot slobber.
Paul
